It would be a good match. Obama fits right in with the GOP crowd. They have similar interests.

------------------------------------------------
“Rules are not necessarily sacred,
principles are.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt

and again---totally reactive, and totally weak.

...to tell her about this, and just as I was about to hit Send, I looked at my subject line again: "Obama Resigns from Trinity."

If only...!

I am just sad about the whole controversy concerning Trinity UCC

but didn't Obama just tell us that he spent the last twenty years sitting in a church which, now that he is running for President, he finds unacceptable? And this is the guy that is supposed to be so politically talented? He better hope the press is there to help him on this one, because the Republicans are going to be like sharks smelling blood in the water.

Which McCain attack do you think will have more resonance?

1. Barack Obama is the sort of person who throws his decade long friendships under the bus after only a month or two of bad press, rather than stand-up and fight for them?

2. Barack Obama is the kind of guy who takes his kids to an ideologically extreme church (where they call on God to damn America and preach that everyone should be forced give up their 401k's or be called a racist), and is trying to run away from his true beliefs?

"and again—-totally reactive, and totally weak.

Right you are amberglow.

A decision 20 years in the making.

If he's the nominee the GOP will have a field day.

give them plenty of fodder, plus the "20 years didn't count" approach for the last 6 months...

Wasn't Obama's book a reflection on all the goodness he learned at Trinity United?
What's he gonna call his book now?

And I sure as f*ck do not agree with one damned thing that a-hole Wright ever said. He's a disgraceful, anti-white racist. I seriously do not understand how anyone, regardless of skin color could agree with anything he says. I know there are alot of far left wingers who suffer from white guilt, but I definitely do not.

When Wright was humping the lectern and bashing the Clintons, it was the exact same thing that Pfleger got in trouble for. In fact, I got into arguments with Obama supporters when Pfleger came out and defended Wright back then. All the Obama supporters were saying "See, there was nothing offensive about what Wright said because a white Catholic Priest says it's all OK", to which I replied that Pleger was another far left wing nutjob, just like Wright. I bet you can guess that that did not sit too well with the Obama crew. But who was right? You guessed it!

I read the piece at your website on this point and thought it was very insightful at the time. Democrats get pushed to the right this way anyway. If it's a person of color or a woman, it's going to be even worse because it's so much easier to portray them as "other" because there are all the racist and sexist stereotypes to rely on in addition to the usual right-wing framing. I think that's especially true when you have a guy like Obama who isn't well-known from years in the public eye. Easier to project what you want on a guy who is a blank slate to a lot of people. And then as he protests what they project, he'll move further right. Then they'll show how that differs from his record and the damage will be done.

Other than the anti-Hillary rants, which I thought had sexist undertones, I never had any real problems with most of the substance of Wright's remarks. Or rather, to the extent I disagreed, none of it was half as offensive as what a lot of white preachers on the right peddle. I feel the same way about Farrakhan. I think he's something of an asshole, but that doesn't make him wrong about everything and he's hardly as noxious as, say, Hagee. And, yet, every election Democrats are expected to denounce Farrakhan. It may be good politics, but it's still wrong. I think the media missed the real Hagee story which wasn't about John McCain, it was about the fact that there are preachers like Hagee out there spewing that noxious shit from the pulpit every Sunday and they have rather large followings.

My big problem related to Wright has always been that I thought Obama handled it badly as a political matter and it would do long-term damage. He's been in reactive mode the entire time and that's almost never good in politics. His resigning from Trinity doesn't solve his "problem." Because he's already defended Trinity and he stayed 20 years. The whole thing just makes him look weak and, even worse given the campaign he's running, like just another politician.

I agree with you that his best bet was to have gotten out in front on this and talked honestly about African American anger and history. Good politics does sometimes flow from good principled stands. Sure, he may have lost, but he might not have. And this whole thing could cause him to lose in the end anyway. Only now he doesn't even have principles to fall back on.

But what do I know? I still think he should've gone to the hills of West Virginia and Kentucky, admitted he had little in common with the people there culturally but talked to them about their shared hopes and how his policies would help them economically and how even if he wasn't like them, he would still fight for them. What can I say? I'm a liberal who wants a leader who is about lifting the poor and oppressed up. I'm not going to get one, but I keep wanting it anyway.

but it shows Obama has what it takes to throw his big donors under the bus should the necessity arise.

So no throwing them under the bus!

This one's true for all pols, btw. Not just Obama, but it certainly includes Obama.

if Amnesty International or someone else gets a warrant for arrest for war crimes, and a big donor can no longer travel anywhere in the European Union, Obama may very well throw him under the bus.

same with a Hedge Fund that gets into legal trouble, under the bus they go

As a Chicagoan, "I greatly resemble that remark."

Yes, things do sometimes get to be a bit raw in Chicago, no doubt about it. People tend to wear it on their sleeves a little more. When, fifteen years ago, I moved out of the city into a nearby suburb, I noticed that "everyone" was "liberal" but their liberalism was skin deep. You'd never hear the "n-word" but with some (not all) it wasn't far from the surface. In Chicago you'd hear both the n-word and tenacious resistance to it. While the rest of the country was at best tepidly resisting Reaganomics in the 1980's, in Chicago, we were FIGHTING it. It's not often remembered now but the great movement that brought Harold Washington to the mayoralty was initially fueled by a tremendous voter registration drive in the previous year which was motivated not by identity politics but by opposition to Reagan. Better "Beirut on the Lake" than passive acceptance of Reaganomics.

Which brings me to Michael Pfleger. His comments about Hillary Clinton were indefensible and repugnant. I won't defend them. He deserves the muzzling by the archdiocese, and the "under the bus throw" by Barack Obama.

I will, however, defend the man and his history. He's been there when others have not. White suburban sports leagues suddenly want to drop the inner city schools from their schedules? Pfleger's the man for that job. He's the man for running programs for the disadvantaged African-Americans left stranded by deindustrialization. Whites may be tired of being guilt-tripped, but sometimes a spade needs to be called a spade. Is his rhetoric sometimes overblown? Obviously.

He's a white man who has chosen to throw in his lot with Black people. Maybe he thought as a white man he could get away with crap a Black man couldn't. It was wrong, and it was indefensible. In Chicago, we've learned to take the bad of Pfleger along with the good. And somehow we manage to live together.

But people, "all that Chicago shit" is just the other side of the coin of "all that hillbilly shit" you guys righteously condemned the OFB for in W.Va and Ky. Both are the Democratic Party's cross to bear in any election. Whether Obama or Clinton is the nominee, it has to be faced.

Isn't a bit defeatist, after all, to say that the Republicans are just going to hit "all that Chicago shit" and therefore we're doomed?

I agree with Bruce, above:

In fairness, they would have run substantially the same campaign against Hillary, though. Both of them are weak candidates

A Democrat's life is not an easy one.

to run on---no issues, no more "bring people together", no accomplishments, etc---and insults and derision of millions of Democratic voters who already don't like him.

Just a little rawer and more rough-edged. There are no corrupt politicians in New York? There are no obnoxious radicals? Annoying religious figures? Isn't Al Sharpton a New Yorker?

Please.

You mention Ayers and Dohrn. What should have been done with them? Who knows? It was long ago. What did happen was that they beat the rap for their crimes and were rich enough to have connections that "rehabilitated" them back into the mainstream. Even Mayor Daley issued a statement defending their later life and work, which has not been the work of Weathermen. Sure, they're idiots for not repenting any of their youthful stupidity, but what does it all mean, really?

You see, that's another thing the Washington period did for us here in Chicago, we got over the sixties. Many sixties radicals got integrated into the system during that time. On the whole it's been more good than bad.

Sure the GOP will try to tar Dems with "the sixties". But overcoming that is part of "shoving the Overton Window leftward." We don't need to emulate the sixties, but we need to stop being ashamed of them.

\

other Americans--or what the GOP will do with it all.

and even back then, politicians didn't hold fundraisers in their homes, or need those people's support to get elected.

"Sharpton, Butts and others never ever ever spout that kind of racist shit from the pulpit or on the streets that we’ve all seen from Wright, Phleger, Farrakhan and others in Chicago."

Excuse me, but how do you know this? Do you attend their churches and monitor everything that's said there? Wright, Pfleger, and others are merely doing what they've always done, but suddenly they're under a microscope they're not used to and not ready for the wider scrutiny.

I'm sure that if this microscope were turned on Sharpton, it would not look all that different. But he isn't as relevant today so he toils in relative obscurity. When the microscope was turned his way, I don't recall him looking all that great.

And would there be a market for the Sharptons, the Wrights, and the Pflegers if there weren't myriad legitimate opportunities for black people to be offended?

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/200...

5/16 -- United Church of Christ to hold conversation on race

With the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's provocative views on race still ringing in the nation's ears, the United Church of Christ will hold a "sacred conversation on race" in most of its churches Sunday. ...

Which I said from the beginning.

I'm defending my city which you have attacked without basis. You guys were all over it when Kentucky and West Virginia were attacked and you were right. But now you're doing the same thing, and I won't let it go unchallenged.

"Phleger (sic) exactly imitated Wright".

Excuse me? I'm not aware of Wright's ever having said anything about Hillary Clinton one way or the other. So what did this imitation consist of other than making remarks that greatly offended you? (And you can't repeat this stuff too often, offended me).

And now are you comparing remarks made on preachers' broadcast TV shows with remarks made in other contexts? You cannot know what goes on in a particular set of churches unless you or someone else goes there and listens to what is said.

Does Obama throwing UCC under the bus make him more fit to be President, or less? Will it affect his election chances favorably, unfavorably, or not at all?

Interesting though I do find all the distractions....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

It doesn't reflect on his fitness to be President one way or the other. He should be judged on his beliefs, not on those of others with whom he is or was associated.

Will it hurt his chances?

Probably not, at least not compared to the endless distraction caused to his message by this church and the media coverage it would have received had it continued.

It was conceivable that the Wright remarks would have derailed his candidacy. It didn't. The connection to Pfleger is less strong, so why would it?

But we won't know for sure until this thing is over.

I stand corrected. Evidently Wright did say something about Clinton.

I still don't see how this constitutes an instance of Pfleger "imitiating" him.

And you, of course, would have praised him had he stood his ground? Somehow I don't think so.

Yes, this is a problem for Obama. Yes, the Republicans are good at coming up with these kinds of issues. What serious Black candidate has ever not been placed under a microscope? Pretend none of this exists, if you like, but it's sort of a recurrent theme. Jackie Robinson, even as he led the way to integrating Major League Baseball had to bite his tongue for two years.

Interestingly enough, many UCC parishioners seem to understand this.

And yes, Hillary Clinton will have to face similar kinds of music if she were somehow to prevail and get the nomination. Other than MSNBC, the MSM has been laying off her in recent months, as her fortunes have declined. It will all start back up if the situation changes.

Suck it up and keep on fighting. It's all any of us can do.

What you've said needs to be said.

What the Pfelger video does is document the culture of the congregation, and speak directly to the heart of Obama's character. It shows not just Pfleger's behavior but that of the congregation itself, the congregants standing, applauding, cheering on, Pfleger's abhorent behavior - and it was abhorent.

The congregants did not sit in shocked silence. They did not shout out disapproval. They did not meet afterwards with the church elders and demand that Pfleger be rebuked. No, they didn't do any of that; rather, they endorsed him.

What the Pfleger performance will do is confirm in the minds of many that the congregation to which Barak Obama has belonged for 20 years is not warm and nurturing but denegrative and destructive. That may or may not be true, but it is what will be seen to be true.

Leaving the church, as Obama himself immdiately saw was required, will likely not be enough. For 20 years he was comfortable there. Comfortable as a member of a congregation that applauds the nastiest sort of public denegration of a perfectly decent woman, a twice-elected sitting United States Senator, former First Lady of the United States, and the popular choice of the voters of the Democratic Party as the next President of the United States of America.

Actions that should make the crudest bigot cringe with shame were not just everyday occurences in this congregation but the subjects of applause and cheering and universal acclaim and approval. No speech will be enough to distance himself from 20 years of association, of fellowship, of congregation. This little problem with his church could well be the beginning of the end of the Obama candidacy. It should be.

heh. that's what we women have been saying too: if you're a woman you have to work twice as hard as a man to be seen as half as good; fortunately it isn't difficult.